Google doubles Plus membership with brute-force signup process

Google's redesigned system for creating accounts makes it difficult to avoid …

Google CEO Larry Page trotted out an impressive statistic during last week's quarterly earnings call: Google+ now has 90 million users, double what it had three months ago. Even better, 60 percent of those users are engaged daily, and 80 percent weekly.

But those users aren't necessarily engaging with Google+. Any action taken during a logged-in Google session—whether it be searching the Internet, checking Gmail or using Google Docs—counts as engagement under the statistic Page used. Google has refused requests from journalists and interested bystanders to reveal exactly what percentage of those 90 million signed-up Google+ users actually view Plus content each day, week or month. Instead, Google is arguing that it doesn't matter: Google+ is so integrated into the overall experience that what matters is the number of users interacting with any Google site. Combined with other steps Google has taken to integrate Plus into search results and other Google properties, the message is clear: Eventually, Google Plus will just be there whether you want it to or not.

Facebook has 800 million active users, and 50 percent of them log in each day, an impressive feat given that Facebook is really just one site (albeit one with hooks into many other websites). Given the vast number of services Google offers, and the simple fact that Google performs a large majority of Internet searches, it's not surprising that most Plus users interact with Google sites each day. It would be hard for them not to.

Still, 90 million people signing up for a service in just over six months is a big number, a quite impressive one if it was all due to organic growth—people consciously deciding to create a Google+ account and use the site in the same way they've done with Facebook and Twitter. But it turns out the act of creating a Google+ account is often just an incidental byproduct of signing up for other Google services.

On Friday, the Google Operating System blog (not affiliated with Google) wrote a post titled "New Google Accounts Require Gmail and Google+." While this isn't strictly true, the blog demonstrates how Google is making it difficult for new users not to sign up for Google+.

"If you try to create a Google account from Google's homepage, you'll notice that Google redesigned the page, but that's not all. You'll now have to create a Gmail account, a Google Profile and you'll automatically join Google+," the blog states. "Until now, creating a Google account was quite simple. You could either use an existing e-mail address or create a Gmail account. The redesigned form includes new fields: name, gender (required for Google+) and mobile phone number (not required)."

One exception is that Google+ accounts are not created for users who are under 18 years of age.

Another story on the matter states that the new signup process was put into effect Friday. But it's actually been in place for a couple of months. We checked with Google's public relations team on Friday, and were told that the new signup process was rolled out in November. That helps explain why Page was able to announce such a large increase in the number of Google+ signups, while avoiding any mention of how often people actually use Google+.

"We hadn't changed our Google Accounts sign-up flow in more than seven years so it was due for a refresh," Google tells us. “We're working to develop a consistent sign-up flow across our different products as part of our efforts to create an intuitive, beautifully simple, Google-wide user experience. Making it quick and easy to create a Google Account and a Google profile enables new users to take advantage of everything Google can offer."

Google notes that once you've signed up, you can delete your entire Google account, or just your Google+ profile in the account settings page. As for Android, a Google spokesperson tells us the latest version of the mobile OS lets users sign up for Google+ when creating a Google account, but it's optional.

The Google Operating System blog also notes that the old Web-based signup page, which doesn't force you into Google+, still exists, and you can access it if you know the URL. This process lets you create a Google account, including Google Docs access, without being forced to create a Gmail address or Google+ profile. We asked Google if the company will continue to maintain this older, more limited signup page, but didn't get an answer.

Testing the signup process: Is Google+ avoidable?

We tested out the new signup process to see if there's any way to avoid creating a Google+ account. The process is the same whether you start from the Google home page, or Gmail. Once you've clicked "Sign up for a new Google Account," you're already almost halfway through the process of creating a Google+ profile. The signup screen allows you to uncheck a box that says "Google may use my account information to personalize +1s on content and ads on non-Google websites," but doesn't give you the option to decline creating a Google+ account.

The second screen tells the user "Now that you have a Google Account, create your Google profile." There are only two options: "Add profile photo" or click "next step." There is no "skip Google+" option. Clicking either available option results in the creation of a Google+ account, which is by default public and discoverable in Google search results.

If you see this page, and don't want a Google+ account, run as fast as you can!

The way to avoid creating a Google+ account is to close the browser tab. If you've done that, you can open another Google page and log in, and you'll have a Google account without a Google+ profile. Basically, you must abandon the signup process halfway through in order to create a Google account without an accompanying Google+ profile, which certainly is not intuitive.

You can go into settings afterward and delete the Google+ account. Otherwise, every time you visit a Google site an icon linking to your Google+ profile is on the top right of the screen.

UPDATE: As some readers note, Google has a policy barring use of pseudonyms on Google+. We've noticed in further tests of the signup process that using obviously fake names can prevent creation of a Google+ account. However, Google said a few months ago that it will allow pseudonyms on Google+ at some as-yet-unrevealed future date.

Shaky statistics make Google+ activity difficult to quantify

The point is not to say that signing up for Google+ is a bad thing. At Ars, we've found Google+ to be an effective platform for interacting with readers. Like Twitter, Google+ seems to attract a large number of tech-savvy professionals, and it has some useful methods for dividing and sorting contacts.

And, the new signup process encompassing all services has its advantages. Once you've completed the process from the Google homepage, you automatically have accounts with Google+, Gmail, Picasa, Google Docs, and more. That is convenient—although it would be nice if you were provided the list of services and the ability to choose which ones you want (and don't want) prior to completing the process.

Google+ is still quite new, so we wouldn't expect it to be challenging the popularity of Facebook already. But Google's method for expanding membership can capture a large number of "users" who barely ever visit the site, and Google has a habit of presenting statistics about Google+ usage in a misleading way during its quarterly earnings calls. Thus, the numbers provided by Google so far aren't all that useful for quantifying how active Google+ really is.

136 Reader Comments

It REALLY pissed me off that Google pulled a backhanded move a six weeks ago with Lattitude on Android. My wife and I use it all the time to know where each other is (we can't always call each other for various reasons even though we want to know where the other is, such as when she's driving home (an hour drive). Lattitude didn't need Google+; it could work based on just an Gmail account; it worked that way since we got our DroidXs the day they came out back in July 2010. But six weeks ago, Google pushed out an update that DISABLED Lattitude if you didn't have Google+. The only way to get it working was to get a Google+ account.

I don't do social media. PERIOD. So this kind of BS move is DEFINITELY Google being Evil, forcing me to do something I didn't have to do previously to enjoy a service so they could pad stats. Google long ago abandoned the "Don't be evil" mantra. Google+ is just more proof. I'm really starting to lose trust and respect for them as a brand with this.

they are pushing google+ really hard in ways that are starting to piss me off (and i am a google+ user to prefers it to facebook.) Now whenever I use the search engine google+ is everywhere. Looks like they did not learn very much from buzz

How is this different from Microsoft bundling internet explorer with Windows?

Google has dominant positions in search, youtube, and large marketshare in webmail.

They are far behind Facebook in social networking, but trying to use their search monopoly to force users into their system.

Microsoft doesn't force you to use Internet Explorer as your browser. The way Google is implementing Google+ indicates that they very much want to make it inseparable from their other services, which makes a lot of current Google users who are not Google+ users very uncomfortable. On the other hand, if you don't like Internet Explorer you can't really uninstall it but at least you can use Firefox. If you want to use Google Docs or Gmail and don't currently have a Google account, fat luck. Although I guess it's nice you can still delete Google+ if you don't want to use it, but I wouldn't be surprised if Google eventually forced people to use G+ accounts.

Been a gmail & youtube user for a long time. Saw the little 'upgrade to google+' button some months ago and still continue to ignore it. Don't need, don't want. But then, I don't use facebook or twitter either.

Personally, I agree this is an anoying move but see it no different to that of Microsoft's peddling of IE, WMP, MSOffice or Bing. Something that's set to get a whole lot worse come Win 8. That's right folks - time to start stockpiling Win 7 keys.

at office, I work on a product development and I find it 'natural' to integrate our product with various others from our company, I mean I dont find it evil in any case.. Its simple, you want x, you get y- it just provides better experience on product x, its better integrated! Not to say forcing a product down someone's throat is great, but then there should be a way to disable it completely, and then you can say that it will be disabled at d cost of ease and better user experience.. Doesnt google provide a way to disable it? Then?

I honestly can't figure out WHY Google is doing this. I mean... I understand from a business standpoint - this move will push people towards Google+, and hopefully they'll reach a critical mass where someone has most of their friends on Google+ and can actually use it for social networking (as opposed to just reading posts by popular tech bloggers).

What I don't understand is why they'd do this when the monopoly problems are so likely to bite them in the ass. It makes no sense to take a risk like this.

I honestly like Google + the way it is now... I ditched Facebook because I was sick of all the bullshit that went along with it. Facebook was nice when it was small, and restricted to the professional/academic worlds. If G+ remains relatively exclusive to the tech-savvy, I'll be happy!

ok. I just made a new google account. While your new account allows you to use all service, including Google+, there was nothing forcing me to go to Google+. I could go to the search engine and mail just like before. So what exactly is the problem here? Most people would gripe if they had to sign up for every Google service independently I would think. Don't like Google+, don't use it. I have a Google+ account that I have used in the past and I have no problem ignoring it now.

I honestly like Google + the way it is now... I ditched Facebook because I was sick of all the bullshit that went along with it. Facebook was nice when it was small, and restricted to the professional/academic worlds. If G+ remains relatively exclusive to the tech-savvy, I'll be happy!

ok. I just made a new google account. While your new account allows you to use all service, including Google+, there was nothing forcing me to go to Google+. I could go to the search engine and mail just like before. So what exactly is the problem here? Most people would gripe if they had to sign up for every Google service independently I would think. Don't like Google+, don't use it. I have a Google+ account that I have used in the past and I have no problem ignoring it now.

Your new Google+ account will show up in public search results, even if you don't use it and didn't intend to create it (the process is such that you may not even realize you've created it). That may bother some people, or it may not.

Any action taken during a logged-in Google session—whether it be searching the Internet, checking Gmail or using Google Docs—counts as engagement under the statistic Page used.

has this actually been confirmed anywhere? I imagine it has to be something *like* that for the number to be so high, but I agree with your original coverage that if it was as simple as doing a search the number would be much higher (I seriously doubt 40% of people going to the effort of making an account use bing for searching the web).

Quote:

And, the new signup process encompassing all services has its advantages. Once you've completed the process from the Google homepage, you automatically have accounts with Google+, Gmail, Picasa, Google Docs, and more. That is convenient—although it would be nice if you were provided the list of services and the ability to choose which ones you want (and don't want) prior to completing the process.

I really have to disagree with the sentiment in this thread so far, and agree more with this (except the last sentence). I think people are getting annoyed that a) features are being added that they don't want and b) they are then being counted in a statistic they don't support.

I agree that the 90 million number is probably BS (at least in the implications of what most of us mean when we say "user"), but do you get upset that when you sign up for gmail that you get access to google docs? Do you think of that as also getting a "google docs account"? No, because that would be dumb.

In a year it will just be a google account that you're signing up for, and google+ will just be another service you do or don't use. Yes, it will exist if you want to use things like latitude, apparently, but if you never add anyone to your circles, does it even matter? tree falling in the forest and all that.

The docs thing is a good analogy again: what would it mean to have a list at signup that lets you choose not to use google docs? It wouldn't show up in the drop down list of services? If that's the only advantage, it sounds like a UI problem, not one with accounts. google+ is a little different if it defaults to a public profile, but, again, it sounds like the only thing they need to do is add a checkbox for "don't make my profile public" on the sign up page.

[edit: or better, "make my profile public", and default off, but I don't know how realistic that is ]

"Evil?" What's evil about a company trying to stay relevant? You might as well bash Microsoft for giving you access to all Windows Live services when you signup for Hotmail. Or Facebook for giving you a free @facebook.com address when you wanted to just a Facebook account.

Do you sign up for separate Calendar, Docs, and Gmail accounts? No? So what's the difference between Google+ and other Google services? If you only use certain Google services (such as Gmail and YouTube), then just ignore the ones you don't use! (Google+, Docs, Calendar) You don't lose anything by not using them, you're not paying for the space, are you? "omg they're so evil!! they're giving us free space that we dont have to use!!"

Any action taken during a logged-in Google session—whether it be searching the Internet, checking Gmail or using Google Docs—counts as engagement under the statistic Page used.

has this actually been confirmed anywhere? I imagine it has to be something *like* that for the number to be so high, but I agree with your original coverage that if it was as simple as doing a search the number would be much higher (I seriously doubt 40% of people going to the effort of making an account use bing for searching the web).

Yes, Google has confirmed this. I see what you're saying, but remember people can still use Google search without being logged in.

"Evil?" What's evil about a company trying to stay relevant? You might as well bash Microsoft for giving you access to all Windows Live services when you signup for Hotmail. Or Facebook for giving you a free @facebook.com address when you wanted to just a Facebook account.

Do you sign up for separate Calendar, Docs, and Gmail accounts? No? So what's the difference between Google+ and other Google services? If you only use certain Google services (such as Gmail and YouTube), then just ignore the ones you don't use! (Google+, Docs, Calendar) You don't lose anything by not using them, you're not paying for the space, are you? "omg they're so evil!! they're giving us free space that we dont have to use!!"

Nah, the issues emerge from the paranoia that is Privacy versus Google.

The paranoia is legitimate IMO, by providing 'un-necessary' services (which contributes to public visibility) to existing subset of Google users who do not need those services, people thinks the "trust has been broken".

I have been moving my usage away from Google because they are intent on systematically destroying the UI for anything except a smartphone. My content on Reader, Docs and Picassa has all been removed but I can't "delete" those accounts. I played with Google+ and deleted it after a while. At some point I was forced to create a You Tube account, too. I've even been switching search engines.

I'm still looking for a good alternative to Gmail.

okungnyo wrote:

Do you sign up for separate Calendar, Docs, and Gmail accounts? No? So what's the difference between Google+ and other Google services?

I don't remember about Calendar, but yes, I *did* sign up for Google Docs way back when. And the difference is that my document names and calendar entries and email subjects are not indexed in a public search engine -- and Google+ is.

It's kinda surprising that the Microsoft way of doing social networking is actually the most privacy-friendly. As bass-ackwards as they used to be, I've actually found myself pleasantly surprised by a lot of their offerings.

Their intelligent mail scanning (finding things like pictures, tracking numbers, documents, etc.) makes it insanely easy to find what you're looking for in your mail. Wish they'd add that kind of intelligence into Outlook, honestly. Windows Live lets you tie in other services from outside their network one at a time if you choose. Google's is EASIER, but you also have less control. Being able to create a "sub" email account (a fake email account for certain kinds of email) that you see from your main account is also nice. I've set up an entire fake email for services I want to try out without long-term commitment, but that I might not want to throw away the email for, and I can access it from within my main mailbox.

Also, I think the Docs.com integration with Facebook is more powerful long-term than Google Docs sharing (although co-editing is damn fun in Google Docs.

Basically, if you're looking to get away from the Goog, I'd say try out Windows Live. It's not half as bad as it used to be, and a lot of their services have features that supersede Google.

That said, I trust the competition even less. At the end of the day, we are dealing with for profit corporations here. Google seems to be the sort of least bad of the evils, but the way things are going .... it's bad enough.

Speaking of shaky statistics, I am ass-tired of every journalist this side of Neptune trotting out this one:

Quote:

Facebook has 800 million active users, and 50 percent of them log in each day, an impressive feat given that Facebook is really just one site (albeit one with hooks into many other websites).

If surfing the Internet, watching television and putting 2 and 2 together counts as a way of gathering information, my guess is that over half of those 800 million Facepalm users is a business of some kind. Every website I visit makes damn sure to tell me I need to befriend them on Facecrap, as does every one of my local TV networks and their individual shows.

Of the two 'evil' corporate overlords, I'll pick Google every time. At least they provide me with some great, useful apps on an everyday basis such as the best search on the planet, and a decent, free email service. Yes, I know they are recording my every move...

They may be telling the analysts about how many users they are signing up, but that isn't going to go very far with analysts when stories like this get reported.

Prediction:

Analyst on earnings conference call: "Sure, but what's the real usage number?"Google: "We are not going to disclose that at this time."Analyst: "Right. Can't you just run Google Analytics on it or something?"Google: "Er, no... we're just not going to talk about it."Analyst: "I see. Well, shucks, I guess I'll just focus on the big number your pushing..." (*snort*)

One current issue for people on G+ is that you are supposed to use your real name - no pseudonyms. That could be a problem for some.

I have found in further tests of the signup process that using an obviously fake name-like one with a bunch of consonants in a row- can prevent creation of a Google+ account. However, Google claims it plans to support pseudonyms at some undefined future time.

google+is a turd. My mother doesn't even know about it and I don't plan to educate her on it. I used to support Google's products but I find their crap really hard to stomach these days. Empires rise and fall and so do the DICKtators that run them.